Whiwe according to de decwarative deory of statehood, a sovereign state can exist widout being recognised by oder sovereign states, unrecognised states wiww often find it hard to exercise fuww treaty-making powers and engage in dipwomatic rewations wif oder sovereign states.

Westphawian sovereignty is de concept of nation-state sovereignty based on territoriawity and de absence of a rowe for externaw agents in domestic structures. It is an internationaw system of states, muwtinationaw corporations, and organizations dat began wif de Peace of Westphawia in 1648.

Sovereignty is a term dat is freqwentwy misused.[3][4] Up untiw de 19f century, de radicawised concept of a "standard of civiwization" was routinewy depwoyed to determine dat certain peopwe in de worwd were "unciviwised", and wacking organised societies. That position was refwected and constituted in de notion dat deir "sovereignty" was eider compwetewy wacking or at weast of an inferior character when compared to dat of de "civiwized" peopwe."[5]Lassa Oppenheim said, "There exists perhaps no conception de meaning of which is more controversiaw dan dat of sovereignty. It is an indisputabwe fact dat dis conception, from de moment when it was introduced into powiticaw science untiw de present day, has never had a meaning which was universawwy agreed upon, uh-hah-hah-hah."[6] In de opinion of H. V. Evatt of de High Court of Austrawia, "sovereignty is neider a qwestion of fact, nor a qwestion of waw, but a qwestion dat does not arise at aww."[7]

Sovereignty has taken on a different meaning wif de devewopment of de principwe of sewf-determination and de prohibition against de dreat or use of force as jus cogens norms of modern internationaw waw. The United Nations Charter, de Draft Decwaration on Rights and Duties of States, and de charters of regionaw internationaw organizations express de view dat aww states are juridicawwy eqwaw and enjoy de same rights and duties based upon de mere fact of deir existence as persons under internationaw waw.[8][9] The right of nations to determine deir own powiticaw status and exercise permanent sovereignty widin de wimits of deir territoriaw jurisdictions is widewy recognized.[10][11][12]

In powiticaw science, sovereignty is usuawwy defined as de most essentiaw attribute of de state in de form of its compwete sewf-sufficiency in de frames of a certain territory, dat is its supremacy in de domestic powicy and independence in de foreign one.[13]

Named after de 1648 Treaty of Westphawia, de Westphawian System of state sovereignty, which according to Bryan Turner is "made a more or wess cwear separation between rewigion and state, and recognized de right of princes 'to confessionawize' de state, dat is, to determine de rewigious affiwiation of deir kingdoms on de pragmatic principwe of cuius regio eius rewigio [whose reawm, his rewigion]."[14]

Before 1900 sovereign states enjoyed an absowute immunity from de judiciaw process, derived from de concepts of sovereignty and de Westphawian eqwawity of states. First articuwated by Jean Bodin, de powers of de state are considered to be suprema potestas widin territoriaw boundaries. Based on dis, de jurisprudence has devewoped awong de wines of affording immunity from prosecution to foreign states in domestic courts. In The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon, Chief Justice John Marshaww of de United States Supreme Court wrote dat de "perfect eqwawity and absowute independence of sovereigns" has created a cwass of cases where "every sovereign is understood to waive de exercise of a part of dat compwete excwusive territoriaw jurisdiction, which has been stated to be de attribute of every nation".[15][16]

Absowute sovereign immunity is no wonger as widewy accepted as it has been in de past, and some countries incwuding de United States, Canada, Singapore, Austrawia, Pakistan and Souf Africa have introduced restrictive immunity by statute, which expwicitwy wimits jurisdictionaw immunity to pubwic acts, but not private or commerciaw ones, dough dere is no precise definition by which pubwic acts can easiwy be distinguished from private ones.[16]

State recognition signifies de decision of a sovereign state to treat anoder entity as awso being a sovereign state.[17] Recognition can be eider expressed or impwied and is usuawwy retroactive in its effects. It does not necessariwy signify a desire to estabwish or maintain dipwomatic rewations.

There is no definition dat is binding on aww de members of de community of nations on de criteria for statehood. In actuaw practice, de criteria are mainwy powiticaw, not wegaw.[18] L.C. Green cited de recognition of de unborn Powish and Czechoswovak states in Worwd War I and expwained dat "since recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing State to accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardwess of de existence of territory or of an estabwished government."[19]

In internationaw waw, however, dere are severaw deories of when a state shouwd be recognised as sovereign, uh-hah-hah-hah.[20]

The constitutive deory of statehood defines a state as a person of internationaw waw if, and onwy if, it is recognised as sovereign by at weast one oder state. This deory of recognition was devewoped in de 19f century. Under it, a state was sovereign if anoder sovereign state recognised it as such. Because of dis, new states couwd not immediatewy become part of de internationaw community or be bound by internationaw waw, and recognised nations did not have to respect internationaw waw in deir deawings wif dem.[21] In 1815, at de Congress of Vienna de Finaw Act recognised onwy 39 sovereign states in de European dipwomatic system, and as a resuwt it was firmwy estabwished dat in de future new states wouwd have to be recognised by oder states, and dat meant in practice recognition by one or more of de great powers.[22]

One of de major criticisms of dis waw is de confusion caused when some states recognise a new entity, but oder states do not. Hersch Lauterpacht, one of de deory's main proponents, suggested dat it is a state's duty to grant recognition as a possibwe sowution, uh-hah-hah-hah. However, a state may use any criteria when judging if dey shouwd give recognition and dey have no obwigation to use such criteria. Many states may onwy recognise anoder state if it is to deir advantage.[21]

Internationaw Law does not say dat a State is not in existence as wong as it isn't recognised, but it takes no notice of it before its recognition, uh-hah-hah-hah. Through recognition onwy and excwusivewy a State becomes an Internationaw Person and a subject of Internationaw Law.[23]

By contrast, de decwarative deory of statehood defines a state as a person in internationaw waw if it meets de fowwowing criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent popuwation; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into rewations wif oder states. According to decwarative deory, an entity's statehood is independent of its recognition by oder states, as wong as de sovereignty was not gained by miwitary force. The decwarative modew was most famouswy expressed in de 1933 Montevideo Convention.[24]

Articwe 3 of de Montevideo Convention decwares dat powiticaw statehood is independent of recognition by oder states, and de state is not prohibited from defending itsewf.[25] In contrast, recognition is considered a reqwirement for statehood by de constitutive deory of statehood. An important part of de convention was Articwe 11 dat prohibits using miwitary force to gain sovereignty.

A simiwar opinion about "de conditions on which an entity constitutes a state" is expressed by de European Economic CommunityOpinions of de Badinter Arbitration Committee, which found dat a state was defined by having a territory, a popuwation, government, and capacity to enter into rewations wif oder states.[26]

State practice rewating to de recognition of states typicawwy fawws somewhere between de decwaratory and constitutive approaches.[27] Internationaw waw does not reqwire a state to recognise oder states.[28] Recognition is often widhewd when a new state is seen as iwwegitimate or has come about in breach of internationaw waw. Awmost universaw non-recognition by de internationaw community of Rhodesia and Nordern Cyprus are good exampwes of dis, de former onwy having been recognized by Souf Africa, and de watter onwy recognized by Turkey. In de case of Rhodesia, recognition was widewy widhewd when de white minority seized power and attempted to form a state awong de wines of Apardeid Souf Africa, a move dat de United Nations Security Counciw described as de creation of an "iwwegaw racist minority régime".[29] In de case of Nordern Cyprus, recognition was widhewd from a state created in Nordern Cyprus.[30] Internationaw waw contains no prohibition on decwarations of independence,[31] and de recognition of a country is a powiticaw issue.[32] As a resuwt, Turkish Cypriots gained "observer status" in de Parwiamentary Assembwy of de Counciw of Europe, and deir representatives are ewected in de Assembwy of Nordern Cyprus;[33] and Nordern Cyprus became an observer member of de Organisation of Iswamic Cooperation and de Economic Cooperation Organization.

Awdough de terms "state" and "government" are often used interchangeabwy,[53] internationaw waw distinguishes between a non-physicaw state and its government; and in fact, de concept of "government-in-exiwe" is predicated upon dat distinction, uh-hah-hah-hah.[54] States are non-physicaw juridicaw entities, and not organisations of any kind.[55] However, ordinariwy, onwy de government of a state can obwigate or bind de state, for exampwe by treaty.[54]

Generawwy speaking, states are durabwe entities, dough it is possibwe for dem to become extinguished, eider drough vowuntary means or outside forces, such as miwitary conqwest. Viowent state abowition has virtuawwy ceased since de end of Worwd War II.[56] Because states are non-physicaw juridicaw entities, it has been argued deir extinction cannot be due to physicaw force awone.[57] Instead, de physicaw actions of de miwitary must be associated wif de correct sociaw or judiciary actions in order to abowish a state.

It has been argued dat one potentiaw reason as to why de existence of states has been controversiaw is because states do not have a pwace in de traditionaw Pwatonist duawity of de concrete and de abstract.[60] Characteristicawwy, concrete objects are dose dat have position in time and space, which states do not have (dough deir territories have spatiaw position, but states are distinct from deir territories), and abstract objects have position in neider time nor space, which does not fit de supposed characteristics of states eider, since states do have temporaw position (dey can be created at certain times and den become extinct at a future time). Therefore, it has been argued dat states bewong to a dird category, de qwasi-abstract, dat has recentwy begun to garner phiwosophicaw attention, especiawwy in de area of documentawity, an ontowogicaw deory dat seeks to understand de rowe of documents in understanding aww of sociaw reawity. Quasi-abstract objects, such as states, can be brought into being drough document acts, and can awso be used to manipuwate dem, such as by binding dem by treaty or surrendering dem as de resuwt of a war.[60]

Schowars in internationaw rewations can be broken up into two different practices, reawists and pwurawists, of what dey bewieve de ontowogicaw state of de state is. Reawists bewieve dat de worwd is one of onwy states and interstate rewations and de identity of de state is defined before any internationaw rewations wif oder states. On de oder hand, pwurawists bewieve dat de state is not de onwy actor in internationaw rewations and interactions between states and de state is competing against many oder actors.[61]

Anoder deory of de ontowogy of de state is dat de state is a spirituaw,[62] or "mysticaw entity"[62] wif its own being, distinct from de members of de state.[62] The German Ideawist phiwosopher Georg Hegew (1770–1831) was perhaps de greatest proponent of dis deory.[62] The Hegewian definition of de state is "de Divine Idea as it exists on Earf".[63]

Since de end of Worwd War II, de number of sovereign states in de internationaw system has surged.[64] Some research suggests dat de existence of internationaw and regionaw organisations, de greater avaiwabiwity of economic aid, and greater acceptance of de norm of sewf-determination have increased de desire of powiticaw units to secede and can be credited for de increase in de number of states in de internationaw system.[65][66] Harvard economist Awberto Awesina and Tufts economist Enrico Spowaore argue in deir book, Size of Nations, dat de increase in de number of states can partwy be credited to a more peacefuw worwd, greater free trade and internationaw economic integration, democratisation, and de presence of internationaw organisations dat co-ordinate economic and powiticaw powicies.[67]

Shaw, Mawcowm Nadan (2003). Internationaw waw. Cambridge University Press. p. 178. Articwe 1 of de Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States, 1 ways down de most widewy accepted formuwation of de criteria of statehood in internationaw waw. It note dat de state as an internationaw person shouwd possess de fowwowing qwawifications: '(a) a permanent popuwation; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into rewations wif oder states'

Jasentuwiyana, Nandasiri, ed. (1995). Perspectives on internationaw waw. Kwuwer Law Internationaw. p. 20. So far as States are concerned, de traditionaw definitions provided for in de Montevideo Convention remain generawwy accepted.

Wheaton, Henry (1836). Ewements of internationaw waw: wif a sketch of de history of de science. Carey, Lea & Bwanchard. p. 51. A sovereign state is generawwy defined to be any nation or peopwe, whatever may be de form of its internaw constitution, which governs itsewf independentwy of foreign powers.

^Wiwde, Rawph (2009). "From Trusteeship to Sewf-Determination and Back Again: The Rowe of de Hague Reguwations in de Evowution of Internationaw Trusteeship, and de Framework of Rights and Duties of Occupying Powers". Loy. L.A. Int'w & Comp. L. Rev. 31: 85–142 [p. 94].

^ abStaff writers (20 February 2008). "Pawestinians 'may decware state'". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 22 January 2011.:"Saeb Erekat, disagreed arguing dat de Pawestine Liberation Organisation had awready decwared independence in 1988. "Now we need reaw independence, not a decwaration, uh-hah-hah-hah. We need reaw independence by ending de occupation, uh-hah-hah-hah. We are not Kosovo. We are under Israewi occupation and for independence we need to acqwire independence".